|
Michael:
I agree with you. You get a better portrait every time if you paint it from life in natural light. However, even though all should, not all have the skills they should have if they want to really paint people professionally.
It is an evolving skill in many, and others don't even know they need it. Even though, IMO, there is nothing more important to a portrait artist than being able to draw and paint from life and do it well. If you can paint from life, then when you paint from photos, your paintings will be better for knowing what a well-lit actual human being really looks like. Take a picture, and you reduce life by 50% - there is a lot of work to bring the painting up to par with what you would get from a live subject sitting right there in front of you in beautiful light that models their form perfectly.
We don't paint things, but the light on things. If the light is artificial, then chances are, it is too bright and too warm, then we will paint it that way - unless we have seen and understand the differences between a live subject and a photograph of same.
Also, certain subjects don't lend themselves to being painted from life - children for example. Thereby, there is some merit in learning photography and doing it well in addition to learning to paint from life and doing it well.
You are correct, however, that the balance on this forum is greatly skewed towards photography and that needs to be reversed - again, IMO.
|